Follow by Email

Al Gore Despair as Global Warming Scam Fails

Al Gore has a meltdown and despairs as his climate change alarmism fails with the general public in Australia. His worst fears are now being realized as he fails to become the planet's first climate Billionaire.

Andrew presents a CSIRO report on Australian attitudes to the climate change con. Even though CSIRO is funded by the government to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars every year to do climate 'research' and so has a vested interest in prolonging the scare, it cannot hide the facts that are revealed in its 5-year study.Despite asking favorable questions, and spinning the data as much as possible to favor CO2 alarmism, the CSIRO, Al Gore and the climate hysteria are all seen to have been utter failures at alarming the Australian public.

Gore - 2008:

The entire north 'polarized' cap will disappear in 5 years.

Then Andrew Bolt, in November 2015 announces:

The Great Global Warming Scare Campaign has failed. (1:40)

Andrew tells us that the scare-mongering that followed was a scandal, pushed by a media that swallowed the most preposterous claims.

Comments

4 Graphs That Demonstrate Why The IPCC Climate Models Will NEVER Be Accurate

From my explanation above there is 0.00% chance that the IPCC models will ever produce results that match the “unadjusted” satellite and balloon data. The only way the IPCC models will ever work is if they continue to “adjust” the NOAA/GISS/HadCRU data to make it more linear and steep. If I am correct in properly identifying the motives and intent of the fraud, the divergence between the ground measurements and satellite data will continue to widen with time. In 10 years, an understanding of the crime detailed above and an update of the following chart is all Congress should need to present an open and shut case against the climate alarmists that have defrauded the American taxpayers, corrupted real science, and destroyed the credibility of our media and educational system.

One of the most absurd claims is that humans could become extinct because of GHG emissions.

The demographic model is simple:increased emissions produce GHG that make the climate inhospitable for humansdeaths exceed births so the population declines until no humans remain.

If humans are responsible for emitting GHGs this model cannot work this way.

Would the level of emissions not decline when population declines? At some point would not absorption of GHGs by the biosphere not restore the balance?At or near that point, would deaths and births not come into balance?

Some time during the last 100,000 years or so modern humans passed through a bottleneck of about 10,000 pairs. Would not human population stabilize at a level much higher than this if the climate alarmists are correct?

I conclude that even if the most alarmist of alarmists are correct, the catastrophes they project are unbelievable, less believable than the science fiction films, such as Waterworld starring Kevin Kostner.

That film was informed by a completely imaginary topography of North America submerged to a level not physically possible given the total volume of water on Earth, including both in the oceans and the icecaps. Yet Waterworld was fun because it was possible for me to suspend disbelief, even though I have American graduate degrees in geography and Earth science.

Do the alarmist believe their own scenarios? Hard to tell. But the fact that half the public do not believe is to me a marvel.

What it shows is that half the population have too high a level of some unrecognized and unappreciated component of human intelligence that prevents them from being educated above the level of their intelligence, something that I cannot say about many of academics with multiple degrees.

Analysing Earths climate of 150 years based on the industrial revolution era while ignoring the remaining 2.3 billion years of Earths current atmosphere is similar to analysing the continent of Australia based on a single grain of sand.

As you can see from my other comments, I do not accept the alarmist view of climate change. In fact, I lean toward the view that both warming and added atmospheric CO2 are beneficial, whether tightly related to each other or not.

But you won't convince me of anything by going so far back in Earth history that you ignore the different configurations of the continents and oceans.

The argument is fallacious that 2.3 billion years of Earth's climate history is relevant to Earth's climate since the end of the Miocene (about 5 million years ago) or the beginning of the Pleistocene, 1.6 million years or so ago.

We can see that some interglacials were warmer than the Holocene, such as MIS-11 about 400,000 years ago, and the Eemian, about 100,000 or so years ago.

MIS-11 has been described as an analogue of the Holocene, so much warmer than today that sea levels may have reached 22 meters (70 feet or so) higher than today and the length of MIS-11 was about 50,000 years compared to the average length of 20,000 to 25,000 years for other interglacial periods.

Pleistocene climates are worthwhile studying and a lot easier than trying to take in 2.3 billion years.

What is absurd is that, based on a fraction of a degree Celsius change in average global climate during 60 years, we have scientists who declare a long-term trend is underway.

Popular Posts

This alarmist propaganda goes against the real data. Penn State Professor Michael Mann has made similar claims of modern temperatures being the warmest, but such “Hockey Stick” temperature claims have been demolished in the scientific literature.

Opinion by Anthony Cox
I wrote before about the ABC’s bias and the real
cost of the ABC to the Australian community. Since then the Abbott
government has announced reasonable budget cuts but the ABC has sunk further
into its betrayal of its Charter and of the Australian community.
In a recent poll about the farcical China/US deal about
emissions the ABC’s The Drum initially showed this result: 12/11/2014: China and the US have struck a new deal to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Do you think Australia will need to adjust its climate change policies as a result? No 55% Yes 44% Unsure 1%

15205 votes counted
Given the ABC’s Left/Green readership a remarkable result.
However shortly the result
was changed to this: 12/11/2014: China and the US have struck a new deal to limit greenhouse gas
emissions. Do you think Australia will need to adjust its climate change
policies as a result?Yes 76% No 23% Unsure 1% 6001
votes counted
How could you trust an organisation which lies like that and
distorts public …